This comes from Oliver at California State University-Long Beach.  Its probably best if you just read his comments below:

CSULB would like to submit a request for a way to identify non-qualified applicants on a general/conditional application level for elimination from review.

Business Reason: CSULB has the challenge of managing the increased number of applications for review. Having our committees review on the conditional level as well as lowering the allocation of reviews have assisted with this challenge but the numbers are still very high and applications that do not qualify are getting reviewed unnecessarily. Having the ability to further decrease the number of reviews through the identification and elimination of unnecessary reviews will assist with campuses with large pools.

Then he writes....

We are in our first cycle so we only have two conditionals to reference at the moment, College of Business and Disabled Student Services. During our review period for our Fall season, College of Business had a total of 514 qualified applications (qualified for CBA conditional). Because the numbers were so high we had to create a GPA threshold of 3.6 to manage the amount of application to review. However, as we went into awarding phase we noticed that there were applicants that did not get reviewed and/or were unnecessarily reviewed. This is because we did not assign reviews to committees based on opportunity specific qualifications and they reviewed applications on a conditional application level. It would be very helpful to quickly know which applications on a general/conditional level do not qualify for any opportunities sourced to the application as a number of our colleges will be reviewing on the general or conditional application level and the numbers can reach into the thousands in our upcoming spring review period (see General Application – University Wid scope).

As a side, I currently have a request ticket open with support along the lines of this enhancement request and the answer thus far is to determine ineligibility via Applicant Centric Awarding (ACA). I reviewed the provided articles and webinar and the only way I could determine this is to drill down into each applicant. At least, that is my understanding of support’s response. Let me know if there is another way to interpret this. Ticket # 46261.

Here are the business reasons provided with my follow up questions in the request ticket:

· Applicants can be factored out of the reviewing process as we have significantly more applications to reviewers

· Applicants can be considered for closer analysis to see why they do not qualify. Perhaps they are incorrectly filling out their applications and/or the applicant record is incorrect?

· Applicants with low to no qualified opportunities can introduce new populations for development (advancement) to create opportunities